Talk:Neozoa

Incorrect interpretation

Neozoa sensu Cavalier-Smith are not a clade, but a (paraphyletic) taxon (part of the kingdom Protozoa Owen 1858 emend. Cavalier-Smith, 2009), comprising only the protozoan (≈ single celled) members of the non-photosynthetic scotokaryote clade (see this article for the recent definition), part of the neokaryotes clade (if it is a clade; the correct rooting hypothesis is a necessary condition) -- read carefully the comment to Fig. 8 in the reference document, or another recent article by C.-S. on this topic).

BTW, scotocaryotes and Opimoda are synonyms only if Metamonada are part of the Opimoda clade (this article is not of the same opinion). Petr Karel (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The figure in the cell article is unrooted, so it doesn't offer an opinion?Jmv2009 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented the incorrectness of the first sentence (Neozoa being a clade and synonym to Opimoda). Proposed correct sentence: "The Neozoa (Cavalier-Smith) is a proposed taxon comprising the protozoan members of the Opimoda or Scotokaryotes clade/evolutionary grade." Petr Karel (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is another mistake - the placement of Diphoda in the cladogram:

Diphoda are defined: "The most inclusive clade containing Arabidopsis thaliana, (Linnaeus) Heynhold (1842) (Archaeplastida); Bigelowiella natans, Moestrup and Sengco (2001) (Rhizaria); Goniomonas avonlea, Kim and Archibald (2013); and Jakoba libera, (Ruinen, 1938) Patterson (1990); but not Homo sapiens Linnaeus (1758) (Opisthokonta); Dictyostelium discoideum, Raper (1935) (Amoebozoa); and Malawimonas jakobiformis, O'Kelly and Nerad (1999)." So Jakobea are part of Diphoda, which is not fulfilled in the cladogram. The same mistake is in Neokaryotes (and maybe other articles). Petr Karel (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it... It could mean that Diphoda doesn't exist anymore unless the Jakobea are removed.Jmv2009 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Cladistic definitions are unequivocal, so Diphoda cannot exist together with Orthokaryotes and Neokaryotes, only one hypothesis is correct and the cladogram cannot comprise both of them. I can only agree, that in an article about the taxon proposed by C.-S., his opinion on Eukaryota rooting is preferred (but it does not mean, I am convinced it is the more probable one) - Diphoda should be removed from the synonymes of the Diaphoretickes branch. Petr Karel (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved/redirected it to Scotokaryotes which doesn't have the same paraphyletic issues.